Cardinal Müller: ‘No need to correct Pope Francis on divorce’

[Guest]

Just now, truthfinder said:

I think Hillary comes across as quite strong (sometimes offensive) but I believe she's just incredibly passionate but also frustrated. Ann,on the other hand, I'm with Nihil. I've read her blog maybe twice and it was just too crazy. 

Maybe I didn't give her a fair shot. I genuinely had her confused with Ann. The fact that she promotes stuff by Ann is troubling to me. Also she seems to really hate the Pope. But reading some of her stuff tonight I don't know what to think lol What a big huge mess.

Just now, Amppax said:

She's nuts. Absolutely, completely, nuts. 

To be fair she's not the only one. There's a bunch of us. The mystery of existence, space and time will tend to do that to you. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

MJM: I want to address the 900-pound gorilla in the room—the controversy surrounding Pope Francis’s post-Synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (AL). The document, especially Paragraph 305, has been described by various priests and theologians, you know on EWTN and elsewhere, as “dangerous,” “very disturbing,” “very problematic,” “a big mistake,” “a direct contradiction of Pope John Paul's Familiaris Consortio,” and so forth. First of all, Your Eminence, how authoritative is AL, and are we talking merely about scandal here, or do these problematic paragraphs savor of heresy?

Cardinal Burke: Well first of all, as I stated from the beginning, the very form of Amoris Laetitia, and, actually, the words of the Pope within the document, indicate that it is not an exercise of the papal magisterium. And the way the document necessarily is read, as with every document, is in the light of the constant teaching and practice of the Church. And so the statements in AL which are in accord with the Church's constant teaching and practice certainly are very fine. But there are a number of statements that are at best confusing and they must be clarified and that's why four of us cardinals posed, according to the classic practice of the Church, five questions to the Holy Father having to do with the very foundations of the moral life and the Church's constant teaching in that regard. And it's clear that we, in presenting the dubia and asking those questions, that we believe that if they're not answered, there's great danger of a continued confusion in the Church, which is leading souls into error with regard to questions that have to do with their very salvation. So certainly, without the clarification of these questions, there is a potential of scandal. With regard to the question of heresy, one has to be very attentive to material heresy and to formal heresy. In other words, material heresy: are there actual statements in the text which are materially heretical? Are they contradictory to the Catholic Faith? Formal heresy: did the person—namely the person of the pope who wrote the document—intend to proclaim heretical teachings? And the last thing, I don't believe myself at all. And I think with regard to the first question, the language and so forth is confusing and it's difficult to say that these confusing statements are materially heretical. But they need to be clarified, and to refuse to clarify them could lead people into error, into radical thinking with regard to some very serious questions. 

MJM: If nothing does change and there is no clarification forthcoming, and since we're talking about the Church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage—and given that marriage is already so embattled, with rampant divorce and now even gay marriage—what do you foresee as the ramifications of AL, especially paragraph 305 and footnote 351, if no clarification comes, not only for the Church but for the whole world? 

Cardinal Burke: It would be very devastating. Recently I read a column by Ross Douthat in the New York Times,commenting on an application of AL in the Diocese of San Diego. He said, correctly, that if this interpretation of AL should be correct and acceptable then the Church's teaching on marriage is finished. And we can't have that, of course, because it's the law which God wrote on the human heart from the very creation; it’s the order, the law, which Christ confirmed in His teaching in a most clear way, as is recounted in Matthew Chapter 19 in which He confers the grace of a Christian sacrament. So the dubia must be answered. The questions have to be answered in accord with the Church's tradition in order that the Church carry out her mission for the salvation of the world. If the Church were simply to accept the way of our culture, with regard to marriage, then she will have betrayed herself and betrayed her Lord and Master, and that we just simply can't permit.

MJM: Now, in a private letter of September 5th to the bishops of Buenos Aires, Pope Francis wrote: “There are no other interpretations of Amoris Laetitia,” other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion in some cases. He is so adamant about this, Your Eminence. So, is it even possible for you to envision a scenario whereby you suddenly discover that you've missed something, that the Four Cardinals are misinterpreting it, and that you'd have to concede you were wrong? I mean if that’s not possible, then what is the point of the dubia? Don’t you already know the answers to your five questions? 

Cardinal Burke: Certainly we do. But the important thing is that the pastor of the universal Church, in his office as guardian of the truths of the Faith and promoter of the truths of the faith—that he make clear that, yes, he answers these questions in the same way that the Church answers them. And so what he wrote in that letter simply means that this is his personal understanding of the matter. But that letter hardly could be considered an exercise of the papal magisterium. And so, it's a painful situation in which to be involved but we simply have to press forward to clarify the matter.

MJM: Your Eminence, in this age of dialogue, Pope Francis himself has called for “open discussion of a number of doctrinal questions” and he said that the thinking of pastors and theologians if they're faithful and honest and realistic and creative “would actually help to achieve greater clarity.” So, what can be inferred from his decision not to dialogue with you in your quest for that very clarity on this most fundamental point of moral theology? 

Cardinal Burke: Well I think, to put it plainly, people have accused us four cardinals of a disrespect for the papal office, of an inimical attitude towards the Pope. This is not the case at all. We are cardinals. We have a very serious responsibility to assist him and, for that reason, we brought to his attention these questions which remain in a document which bears his signature. And we can’t do otherwise, and the Church can't do otherwise. And so the matter will have to be resolved certainly. We've initiated a conversation by raising the dubia. And when we were informed that there would be no response, then we knew we had to bring the conversation before the whole Church because so many faithful—so many priests and bishops—are expressing a great confusion in this matter, and also by recounting how these divisions are setting up more divisions in various parts of the Church between bishops and priests and lay faithful on fundamental teachings of the Faith. Well, that's the work of the devil. The Holy Spirit generates unity and the daily conversion of life to Christ that helps us to overcome our sins and to live in accord with the truth. And so this division, this confusion, has to be addressed and remedied. Does that make sense to you? 

MJM: It absolutely does. And obviously, it seems to us, as lay faithful looking on, that that's your job – your duty before God.

Cardinal Burke: In fact, you know some people have said to me: “Well why did you publish these dubio? He’s the Pope. You should have been satisfied.” But, no, that’s not sufficient because everywhere I go—and I travel a lot now—everywhere I go people are saying: “What's wrong with you Cardinals? There are these serious questions, and yet you remain silent. You don't say anything.” And they’re correct. If we were to remain silent it would most definitely give the idea to the faithful that everything is fine, but everything is not fine.

MJM: Now, the idea that this could even escalate to the point where you would lose your cardinal rank. Do you believe it could come to that? 

Cardinal Burke: I don't even think about it. I mean, certainly, it's possible. It's happened, historically, that a cardinal has lost his title. But I don't think about it because I know what my duty is and I can't be distracted from it by these kinds of thoughts – you know, worrying about whether I’m going to be in some way persecuted for defending the truth. As I said, one person said to me: “Aren't you afraid to insist on these matters?” And I said that what I'm afraid of is to have to appear before Our Lord at the Last Judgment and having to say to Him: “No, I didn't defend You when You were being attacked, the truth that You taught was being betrayed.” And so, I just don't give it any thought.

MJM: Well what you just said, Your Eminence, is something I pray becomes contagious in the life of the Church and at the highest levels. But you know, you have a lot of support. In fact, in expressing their support for you and the other three cardinals, a number of high profile pastors and academics and professors, both here and in Europe, signed a letter of support a few weeks ago in which they pointed out that, as a result of the widespread confusion and disunity following the promulgation of AL, the universal Church is now entering a “gravely critical moment in her history” that, according to them, has alarming similarities with the great Arian crisis of the Fourth Century. I'm curious to know: Do you agree with that? Do you think this has the potential to escalate into something similar to the Arian crisis? 

Cardinal Burke: Well, it does, and in the sense that as long as confusion spreads more and more about a fundamental truth of the Faith. Now in the case of the Arian crisis, it had to do with the two natures in the one person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But here we're dealing also with a very fundamental truth, two fundamental truths really: The truth about Holy Matrimony and the truth about the Holy Eucharist. And if this confusion doesn't stop, we will have a situation where you will have within the Church large bodies of people who don't believe the Catholic Faith, as, for instance, St. Ambrose encountered when he became Bishop in Milan. So you know, it's a serious matter, and I don't think that they're being extreme by making that observation (a comparison to Arianism). I don’t think they’re being extreme at all.

MJM: Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who seems to be sort of your wing man at this point, supporting you, thanks be to God—in his letter of support for the Four Cardinals, he speaks of what he calls “intolerant reactions to your dubia”, and he points out that the Four Cardinals have been castigated as “witless, naïve, schismatic, heretical and even comparable to the Arian heretics.” So this has to be hurtful to you personally, obviously, Your Eminence. But what has gone wrong in the Church when a simple request for clarity on a matter of morality and doctrine is met with was such a visceral reaction on the part of members of the hierarchy? What has gone wrong? 

Cardinal Burke: I'll tell you what I think has gone wrong, and that is a very worldly, a very mundane way of thinking has entered into the life of the Church. The Church is divided into political parties and so forth, instead of the unity of all Catholics and the unity in Christ. And this worldly way of thinking then permits people to engage in this kind of intemperate and ridiculous ad hominem approach. The dubia are stated very respectfully; they're very honest questions and they merit an honest reply. And what I see in these intemperate reactions is a sign that the people who don't want to answer our dubia in fact realize that they are not on solid ground. They can’t answer the dubia correctly and so they try to discredit the person who raised the questions. It's an old human reaction, but it's mundane, it's secular. It has no place in the Church.

MJM: So what's next, Your Eminence? If Pope Francis fails to answer your dubia, what's the next course of action? You've spoken of the possibility of elevating this to a formal correction. But what exactly does that look like? 

Cardinal Burke: Well, it doesn't look too much differently than the dubia. In other words, the truths that seem to be called into question by AL would simply be placed alongside what the Church has always taught and practiced and annunciated in the official teaching of the Church. And in this way these errors would be corrected. Does that make sense to you? 

MJM: Yes, absolutely. This is a little off topic, when I was in Rome covering the Synod last year, I noticed this constant theme throughout—this idea of accompaniment, the ‘Church of accompaniment’, as though Holy Mother Church didn't know how to accompany the sinner in the past. That confused me, but it also seemed to be going further. Cardinal Peter Turkson, for example, assured us in the Vatican Press Office that at the next Synod this ‘Church of accompaniment’ would address so-called ‘gay unions’. Do you foresee change coming even in the way this pontificate ‘accompanies’ those who are in gay unions? Is it possible that next year at this time, we might be discussing dubia on a post-Synodal exhortation that appears to approve the gay lifestyle? 

Cardinal Burke: Well, this notion of accompaniment certainly has no classic theological or doctrinal meaning. And it certainly doesn't justify calling into question the moral truths, especially regarding acts that are always and everywhere evil. And if accompaniment is understood in that way, you're quite correct — it could lead us into all kinds of very damaging and very confusing discussions. But I think that this false notion of accompaniment as it has manifested its harmful effects in the discussion of the situation of those who are in irregular matrimonial unions, will lead us to either clarify what accompaniment means or to abandon the use of that category. This goes back to the relationship of faith to the culture. We are called by our faith to encounter the culture, but we encounter the culture with the truths of the faith and call it to a transformation. In other words, to conform itself ever more to the truth which God has written in nature itself and in particular on the human heart. But if that notion of countering the culture is not theologically informed, not understood correctly, the Church begins to look like it's running after the culture. In other words, that it's trying to mimic the culture. Now if the culture were perfectly Christian, it still wouldn't be correct, but the faith wouldn't be harmed. But we’re living in a culture which is anti-life, anti-family, anti-religion. So to give any impression that the Church endorses such a culture—this is folly.

MJM: Yes, it seems like that. I mean, the Holy Father admonished priests against turning the confessional into a “torture chamber”; but it seems like now more than ever before, this culture, which is so Christophobic, if you will, needs to hear the voice of Mother Church in a way that's corrective …maybe not accompanying, but what I'm saying is that the act of trying to correct and help the sinner—isn't that the ultimate way of accompanying the sinner? 

Cardinal Burke: Exactly right! And that's all done with charity. We don't approach people shaking our finger, screaming at them, or acting hysterically. Our faith makes us serene, but it also makes us firm and steadfast. And so we address the culture with the truth of the moral law and the truth which Christ Himself teaches. And, actually, in truth, that's what the culture really desires. The culture has no respect for a Church which simply says: “Oh, everything is just fine” and endorses it. This culture expects the Church to address it with a challenge. Oftentimes I’ve thought of it in terms of the relationship of parents with children. When children are misbehaving, children need to be corrected and guided. If parents simply coddle, “oh, you’re just fine, that's all right”—the children grow up in a very disordered way and have great problems. And the children don't respect their parents for that.

MJM [chuckling]: I can tell you, Your Eminence, as the father of seven children, I don't accompany my children so much. I love them and correct them when it's needed, but accompany them? What’s that mean? 

Cardinal Burke: Exactly. Even as a teacher, I've corrected students and had them scream at me: I hate you. I’ve had parents tell me that the child, you know, runs out of the room saying: I hate you. But I think, ultimately, that child, that young person, will be so grateful for the correction received. It may not be immediate gratitude but that's what the important thing is – that we have eternity and the eternal good of the child and even also the eternal destiny of the culture and can act accordingly.

MJM: Right. You know, Your Eminence, Catholics have been through a lot over the past decade, with the priest scandal, the abdication of Pope Benedict and this rather unconventional pontificate of Pope Francis. And now this. I know we're running a little low on time here, but what is your advice for faithful lay Catholics should Pope Francis continue to not answer you dubia?

Cardinal Burke: My advice is this, and it's inspired by the truth, the reality that Christ is alive for us in the Church, in her teaching, in her Sacraments, her life of prayer and devotion and in her discipline: Continue to steep yourself in the knowledge of the faith and the knowledge of Christ as He is alive for us in the Church. Study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other expressions of the Church's constant teaching, for example, the apostolic exhortationFamiliaris Consortio of St. John Paul II. And then continue to deepen your participation in the Sacred Liturgy and prayer life at home and devotional life. And at the same time, strive to conform your life evermore to the truths of our faith, following the Church's moral teaching and the teaching of the moral law. Today, after the Post Communion Prayer, we prayed in the Ordinary Form that we would be torches to welcome Christ by our prayer and witness to His truth, and that's what we ought to be concerned about. And if we do that we will be encouraged and won’t let ourselves get worn down by these great difficulties through which we're passing now.

MJM: Your Eminence, I was born in 1966, basically a child of the Second Vatican Council, and all my life it seems there has been a pattern of gradual diminishing of Sacred Tradition and replacing it with something new. You know, Communion in the hand or altar girls or easy annulments and all this. Pope Francis describes himself as one who is acting in faithful accord with the true spirit of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. And I'm wondering, is there any concern in your mind that what we're seeing now is in fact a following of some sort of continuum of that spirit of Vatican II that has less to do with Francis and more to do with a new orientation of the Catholic Church altogether.

Cardinal Burke: That is a legitimate concern. And whenever I hear this language—the ‘spirit of the Vatican II’—I am immediately alerted because there's no question, it's been demonstrated and can be demonstrated more that a lot of what happened in the Church after the Second Vatican Council, which invoked the Second Vatican Council, had nothing to do with what the Council Fathers taught. We saw it in the devastation of the Sacred Liturgy and in other aspects, as well. So I think that what we must do is return to the constant teaching of the Church as it's expressed in the Second Vatican Council, but in all of the ecumenical councils and in all of the authentic teachings of the Church down the centuries. Only when Catholics are well steeped in the teachings of the faith are they going to be prepared to give that witness which is needed today and also will they be prepared to be strong members of the Church and keep the Church strong. We're suffering today from decades of poor catechesis, or no catechesis at all. And all of that is reaping its effects. But we have the tools to address it and we need to use them. And I see a lot of signs of people who really want now to know their faith and deepen their knowledge of the faith. And they want the Sacred Liturgy to really be what it is meant to be, an encounter with Heaven in all its beauty. These people are also deeply concerned to learn how to lead a good and moral life.

MJM: Last question, Eminence, if you could say something that would help me out. We're members of the Catholic press, and there are many members of the Catholic press who support you and the three cardinals. But we want to be part of your solution. We don't want to be part of the problem. What do you want us to do as this dramatic dubia situation unfolds? Is there something that you would rather we didn't say? In other words, what's the best thing that we can do to help you in this position that you're in? 

Cardinal Burke: I think the best thing you can do to help, and a number of you have been doing it already, is simply to print the truth but in a serene way to maintain absolute respect for the Church in all her aspects, including the petrine office, which is essential to our life in the Church. But at the same time to speak clearly the truth in a loving way. And if you do that, as a number of you have been doing, that will really be helpful. We don't want to contribute to the division by taking a very aggressive and outspoken approach, which will divide people and will cause people who don't understand all of what's going on, to be scandalized. That we want to avoid. But I think if you express the truths of our faith in this serene and loving way that will help everybody, including those who may not yet understand the difficulty that we're in.

MJM: Your Eminence, I really appreciate your taking the time to answer these questions. I think it goes without saying that we're all praying for you and we're so grateful for the stand you've taken. And if there is anything, ever, at any point that we can do to help you out, please let us know. And please be assured of our support and prayers as you move forward.

Cardinal Burke: Thank you. Keep praying for me and I’m really grateful for it. And I've really enjoyed talking with you this morning.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

© 2017 OnePeterFive, Inc. All rights reserved.

How Many Fingers is Francis Holding Up Now? Amoris Laetitia and Submission

Hilary White January 10, 2017 

We are hearing more complaints of division. Why, goes the lament, is the Church divided? Why can we not simply “put our differences aside”?

Simply, because two logically opposed things can’t both be true.

This week, we have been offered two interviews that very helpfully delineate the main divisions in the Church today and the reason the Church is now divided into two utterly, implacably opposed camps, currently struggling for ascendancy. These, of course, are the same two sides that have been engaged for fifty years in a protracted Cold Civil War that has, with the publication of Amoris Laetitia, burst into the public consciousness, guns blazing.

In fact, the two divergent worldviews of the interviews also illustrate the great gulf that exists in all aspects of social discourse throughout the lands formerly known as Christendom. They give us an insight into exactly why Amoris Laetitia – and the shrill demands of submission to it – is so important as a line of demarcation between the remnants of the old world and the Brave New Paradigm that has been struggling for control of our civilization since the start of the 20th century.

Father Antonio Spadaro, the pope’s close friend, published an interview today in La Civilta Catholica with Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, the prelate whom the pope has said is the authorized “interpreter” ofAmoris Laetitia. On the same day, we have another interview with Cardinal Burke by Michael Matt, editor of the venerableRemnant magazine.

In the first, Spadaro asked Cardinal Schönborn:

Some have spoken of “The Joy of Love” as a minor document, a personal opinion of the pope, without full magisterial value. What value does this exhortation possess? Is it an act of the magisterium? This seems obvious, but it is good to specify it now, in order to prevent some voices from creating confusion among the faithful when they assert that this is not the case.…

His eminence replied:

It is obvious that this is an act of the magisterium: it is an apostolic exhortation. It is clear that the pope is exercising here his role as pastor, as master and teacher of the faith,after benefiting from the consultation of the two synods.

In the Remnant interview, Mike Matt asked Cardinal Burke essentially the same question: is Amoris Laetitia “authoritative” in the sense of a requirement by the faithful of consent.

The American cardinal responded:

“As I stated from the beginning, the very form of Amoris Laetitia, and, actually, the words of the Pope within the document, indicate that it is not an exercise of the papal magisterium. And the way the document necessarily is read, as with every document, is in the light of the constant teaching and practice of the Church. And so the statements in AL which are in accord with the Church’s constant teaching and practice certainly are very fine. But there are a number of statements that are at best confusing and they must be clarified and that’s why four of us cardinals posed, according to the classic practice of the Church, five questions to the Holy Father having to do with the very foundations of the moral life and the Church’s constant teaching in that regard.”

Look carefully at these two responses to discern the vast difference in the underlying understanding of what Catholicism actually is. Burke has addressed the nature of the document’s contents, asking us to consider whether what it says is objectively Catholic.

Schönborn is concerned only that the document itself has come from the pope. It is Catholic teaching because the pope says it is. Its contents are irrelevant. If it contradicts 2000 years of practice, if it contradicts even the words of Christ in Scripture – irrelevant. It is the pope, therefore it is authoritative.

It is only after establishing this as the highest criterion that he bothers to address the document’s content, saying, “I have no doubt that it must be said that this is a pontifical document of great quality, an authentic teaching of sacra doctrina, which leads us back to the contemporary relevance of the word of God.” But even here he gives away his positivistic mindset, implying that a contradiction – yes, adulterers can now receive Communion – can be somehow justified simply because it is 2017.

Truth, reality, human nature, God’s intentions – and therefore Catholicism – are all mutable, and it is the job of churchmen (well, some churchmen) to figure out what it is now. Schönborn again:

“We are led in a living manner to draw a distinction between the continuity of the doctrinal principles and the discontinuity of perspectives or of historically conditioned expressions. This is the function that belongs to the living magisterium: to interpret authentically the word of God, whether written or handed down.”

This, by the way, is a textbook expression of Neo-Modernism; the idea that Catholic doctrine must be “reformulated,” that is, expressed in new ways to suit “modern man”.

In his next paragraph, Schönborn is even more explicit about the pope’s intentions of abandoning traditional Catholic philosophical foundations about the nature of reality, including human nature, as immutable:

In this sphere of human realities, the Holy Father has fundamentally renewed the discourse of the church—certainly along the lines of his apostolic exhortation “The Joy of the Gospel” but also of Vatican II’s “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World,” which presents doctrinal principles and reflections on human beings today that are in a continuous evolution. There is a profound openness to accept reality.

We are not told what, exactly, these “doctrinal principles” are. But we are being told every day that no matter what they are, we are obliged to submit.

The contrasting statements in these two interviews illustrate that our divisions are based on two irreconcilably opposed understandings of the nature of reality, and therefore of Catholicism, at the very highest levels of the Church.

The first of these two divergent universal worldviews is:

Positivism [1] – Truth, reality, is whatever we perceive it to be; therefore the Catholic religion is what we say it is. It has no relationship at all to external reality – which itself may or may not exist and is, in any case, irrelevant. Catholicism can and must be changed, even in its essentials, to suit the changing needs of society, of contemporary men and women or whatever criterion we decide. Not only is there no such thing as an immutable human nature that remains subject to the same moral laws throughout human history, but there is no analogous nature to truth or even to God. God can change His mind, and it is up to us to discern, through examining the “signs of the times” or the trends of history (or whatever) what His new will is for human beings.

The idea that there is an unchanging nature to Truth and that it applies equally in all times to the unchanging human nature is inherently oppressive, regressive and unjust, legalistic, rigid and “unpastoral”.

The one thing we need to know is that this mutable will of God is conveyed through the pope, and only the pope, and/or his chosen proxies. “Do as you’re told” shall be the whole of the law for the likes of us.

The second worldview is:

Epistemological Realism [2] – Reality exists in a particular way outside our perceptions and apprehension of it. The proper use of the human intellect is to discover and articulate that reality, including the ultimate reality of God and His relationship to man. Therefore Catholicism is nothing more than an accurate description of objective, immutable, external reality and cannot be changed by human fiat. Catholicism, to the Epistemological Realist, has the same quality of value in relation to objective reality that mathematics and physics have.

This is the “classical” philosophical worldview that formed the foundation of what we now call “western” thought and civilization. In this paradigm, it is not possible for the Church to one day say something is forbidden, and then claim that through “development” or “pastoral discernment” that thing is now allowed. A “no” cannot “develop” through the mere passage of time or cultural differences into a “yes.”

Under this paradigm, Catholicism, including in its “pastoral practice” in “concrete cases,” is a unified whole that is rational; it never contradicts or conflicts with itself – including with its past – or with observable phenomena.

Epistemological Realism is, simply put, the idea that “reality is a real thing” and that it can in some respects be apprehended by human perception, through reason [3]. It appeared in recorded history in Greece and was developed in a continual stream through the medieval philosophers and has informed Catholic thought since the Church’s foundation. It is also the foundation of all modern natural science from Euclid’s geometry to Galileo and Copernicus’s astronomical observations, to medical and biological sciences to NASA. Its application in Catholicism rests on the premise that there is such a thing as a Divine and a human nature that are both the same in all times and places.

We are seeing, increasingly, that in the Church it is Positivism that is the philosophical foundation of the post-conciliar revolution. This is why we who write about this situation have started using the term “Papal Positivism” for the idea that the pope can, through some kind of mystical power granted by his office, decide that it is time to change Eucharistic practice to oppose Eucharistic doctrine.

Moreover, the furious response to theDubia by many prelates in favour with the pope — with hysterical accusations of “schism” being flung at the four cardinals — shows us where Positivism leads.Amoris Laetitia demonstrates that as a guiding principle, Papal Positivism reduces to an exercise in sheer political power, predicated on an assumption of a pope’s godlike capacity to change, or just ignore, the very nature of reality.

One might say that Amoris Laetitia is the Orwellian four fingers being held up before the whole Church, with the demand that we all say it is five. The actual content, the actual number of the fingers, is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is our eagerness to submit.

A few days ago, just before he published this interview, Spadaro told the whole world on Twitter that the new theology doesn’t have anything to do with objective reality, and that to insist that it must is wrong-think.

The fact that the new Anti-Rational Paradigm has not yet received proper submission was demonstrated by the pointing and laughing at this absurdity in his Twitter feed. He was rather mercilesslyraked over the coals for it.

This manifestly anti-rational statement was taken, quite rightly, as a sign of a half-deranged mind, or of one so intellectually deformed as to be incapable of mature thought, still less of any kind of valuable comment.

Moreover, astounding though it might seem, Spadaro didn’t remove the post in embarrassment, as one would if one had been caught carelessly posting something silly that would hurt one’s cause. Instead he doubled down, trying in further posts to justify and defend this “position”. It was apparent that he saw nothing wrong with it, could not grasp why it had received such a reaction, and learned nothing at all from the many corrections – some apparently not derisive – that he received in response.

When we wouldn’t stop laughing, he responded in the only way a Positivist can: through force. He blocked everyone who had commented. The fact that he thought his post made some kind of sense, was willing to try to defend it, and then responded with force, while being the most hilarious part of the business is also the most telling.

As I’ve been saying, one of the most helpful and fruitful effects of this pontificate has been to reveal the intellectual, doctrinal and formative failings of modern Catholic prelates. Keep talking, guys, so all the world can see and decide. We are in the time of the Great Clarification.

Today, thanks to Spadaro and Schönborn telling us what they really think, we are able to understand even more clearly than we did last week why Pope Bergoglio has put them in charge of interpreting and disseminating his ideas. This is the pope who sees no difficulty proposing wildly divergent and logically opposed ideas from one day to the next. Who has no qualms about simply changing 2000 years of Catholic teaching and practice, of re-writing Scripture to suit this or that homiletic point (No, your holiness, the miracle of the loaves and fishes wasn’t about “sharing,” nor was it a “parable.”)

What people who have decried these incomprehensible contradictions have failed to understand is that “meaning” is irrelevant. The purpose of these communications has not been to inform the Catholic faithful of the pope’s thought or reflections on Scripture. Content is irrelevant; only submission counts, only power. This means the more ambiguous, the more contradictory, the more vapid, the more illogical, the better.

And this is what people are missing. He hasbeen perfectly consistent in all his responses, since he is always saying the same thing: submit. Indeed, we have had a report recently that he knows full well that his work to change the Church’s ancient teaching must rest exclusively on the pure exercise of raw power. When Cardinal Müller of the former Holy Office asked why Francis had demanded the abrupt dismissal of three of his best priests, the pope is reported to have responded as all tyrants do: “I. AM. THE. POPE. I don’t have to answer to anyone.”

Positivism, the denial of an objective reality, must lead ultimately to authoritarianism. If there is no objective reality, there is no need for any rules that regard it; any notion of a Rule of Law is meaningless. What have we seen happen throughout history when the Rule of Law breaks down? There can only be Rule of the Strongest, Rule of Power. This is why, now that the make-reality-up-as-you-go-along principle is firmly in place in the papal office, the pope must clamp down so furiously on “dissent,” even the softly diplomatic “dissent” of asking politely for a clarification.

What does Amoris Laetitia mean?

“It means what I say it means. It means shut up.”

Francis is the pope of many “firsts” but none of them so important as being the first pope to use the papacy to demolish Catholicism from its most elemental, philosophical foundations. He is the first pope to use the papacy as a means of injecting the new Anti-Rational Principle into the Church, an exercise of almost incomprehensible hubris. One, moreover, that he could not possibly have got away with 50 years ago, but now made possible by the near-universal triumph of the same philosophical vacuity throughout our entire civilization. We have been told all our lives that objective reality doesn’t count and we can all decide it for ourselves.

What we failed to grasp was that in a reality-vacuum, he who has the most power will decide for us.

The Anti-Rational Principle is ascendant in the Church, but because it is an untenable proposal, it must be enforced through brute force, a situation that cannot be maintained indefinitely, as the emperors and tyrants of the past all knew. In the face of this anti-rationality, a quiet, even reticent man like Cardinal Burke can strike terror into the heart of a tyrant merely by stating the obvious truth.

 

 

 

[Guest]

Just posting. Not agreeing.

A female friend commented this isn't the Catholicism she signed up for.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Guest

[bardegaulois]

Josh, I think you're confusing any valid criticism of the Bergoglio papacy with condemnation. Many criticisms are being made by press and clergy alike, and Francis and his inner circle would be somewhat remiss in their duties if they didn't pay attention to these. I have no clue why you posted what you recently did, but it might be informative to add to this an essay recently published in The Spectator by Damian Thompson, who has much experience covering religious matters. None should have any reason to doubt the veracity of what he or his sources are saying here, but all should see that there's something of a problem here.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/why-more-and-more-priests-cant-stand-pope-francis/

[Nihil Obstat]

We live in interesting times.

[Guest]

Nm

Edited January 12, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

9 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

Josh, I think you're confusing any valid criticism of the Bergoglio papacy with condemnation.

You think wrong. I blatantly said I'm fine with criticism. I draw the line at calling him a f a g. Also you were talking all that **** about lawsuits like a little girl then just dropped it when I provided you with links and quotes. And that was only 10 minutes of searching. Granted I did mix up Hilary and Ann but they are closely tied together. As far as that link I will check it out. As much as you and people like you cant stand the Pope the feelings are mutual. I can't stand you either. I will take this to Confession becuase I know we're not supposed to hold anything against our brothers and sisters. So as far as Priest's and others as you suggested not being able to stand the Pope that is gravely sinful. Hopefully we all repent and turn away from that. Especially before approaching Christ in the Eucharist. Although I won't hold my breath.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

From the article you linked : 

On 2 January, the Vatican published a letter from Pope Francis to the world’s bishops in which he reminded them that they must show ‘zero tolerance’ towards child abuse. The next day, the American Week magazine published an article that told the story of ‘Don Mercedes’ — Fr Mauro Inzoli, an Italian priest with a passion for expensive cars and underage boys.

In 2012, Pope Benedict stripped Inzoli of his priestly faculties, effectively defrocking him. In 2014, however, they were restored to him — by Pope Francis, who warned him to stay away from minors.

Then, finally, the Italian civil authorities caught up with this serial groper of teenagers in the confessional. Last summer Inzoli was sentenced to four years and nine months in jail for paedophile offences. The Vatican, under ‘zero-tolerance’ Francis, refused to supply evidence that prosecutors wanted.

.............................................................

...................................................................

If this is true that's really sick. I'm just overwhelmed with all the Anti-Catholic/Anti-Rome stuff coming from Catholics. It's the same stuff coming from Anti- Catholic Protestants. Really confusing. Has me wondering if being Catholic is where I'm supposed to be.  

Edited January 12, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

"Consider the case of Fr. Mauro Inzoli. Inzoli lived in a flamboyant fashion and had such a taste for flashy cars that he earned the nickname "Don Mercedes." He was also accused of molesting children. He allegedly abused minors in the confessional. He even went so far as to teach children that sexual contact with him was legitimated by scripture and their faith. When his case reached CDF, he was found guilty. And in 2012, under the papacy of Pope Benedict, Inzoli was defrocked.

But Don Mercedes was "with cardinal friends," we have learned. Cardinal Coccopalmerio and Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto, now dean of the Roman Rota, both intervened on behalf of Inzoli, and Pope Francis returned him to the priestly state in 2014, inviting him to a "a life of humility and prayer." These strictures seem not to have troubled Inzoli too much. In January 2015, Don Mercedes participated in a conference on the family in Lombardy."
 

@bardegaulois Apologies I'm done for awhile. This is ******* disgusting. Smh

Edited January 12, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

@bardegaulois Thanks for that article. I have zero tolerance for this. It makes me sick to my stomach. It makes me want to leave Catholicism all together. I just took down all my Pope Francis stuff on Facebook. Going to try to take a break from Phatmass. God bless you guys. Peace.

[bardegaulois]

Josh, I'm sorry the truth hurts. I reside in a diocese that was hit very hard by the abuse scandal as well as by liturgical and pastoral modernization. Needless to say, though this a strongly Catholic area historically, religious practice is largely moribund, and the quality of clergy we have here, from the bishop on down, hasn't changed in 30 years. They cheered Francis upon his election, seeing him as one of them. I suspended my disbelief for a year and gave him a chance. But eventually I mourned, and that sinking feeling that I contained rather well when he appeared on the loggia came back.

However, the Church is much greater than the papacy. A sort of ultramontanism came easily under Wojtyla and Ratzinger, but the events of the past four years have shaken many out of it. Think about it: for every John Paul II or Pius X, there were likely five mediocre popes. And then there some who were possibly even malicious. No, the Church is just as much the young people to whom I instructed the Baltimore Catechism, the altar boys I've trained to serve the Traditional Latin Mass, the priests whose surreptitious Low Masses I've served. We are part of this Church, this mystical Body of Christ, despite pedophile priests or prelates who are just a little too cozy with modernism. So what are we doing to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth that Our Lord said that we are? That's really what our salvation comes down to, not how the personal opinions or style of any pope or prelate. Some may inspire us; others less so; some may even rub us the wrong way. But Christ is the same forever. Consider that.

[Guest]

Godbless you @bardegaulois please accept my apologies for the way I lashed out at you. Please keep me in prayer as I will all of you too. I'm going to take a break from Phatmass. God bless brother.

[Jack4]

https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/holy-see/card-burke-defends-the-dubia-in-wake-of-card-muller-s-tv-interview 

Cardinal Burke responds.